Spirit-and-Fire Baptism

Author(s): James D. G. Dunn

Source: Novum Testamentum, Vol. 14, Fasc. 2 (Apr., 1972), pp. 81-92
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1560174 .
Accessed: 15/03/2011 16:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Novum Testamentum.

http://www.jstor.org
 SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM

BY

JAMES D. G. DUNN
Nottingham

Mark (i 8) 'crTO8' pmataLT LLVe v rsUacTc CyLco.

Q (Matt. iii ii; Luke iii 16) ocU6Vroqtixq P(CXarL V 7rXvuLan
&yL, xcrO7upL.

In the history of the exegesis of this logion scholarly opinion has

usually settled on one of four interpretations-two of them ancient,
and two of them comparatively modern.
I) Chrysostom related the 'fire' to the 'Holy Spirit' and under-
stood John to be speaking of the fire of the Holy Spirit-an in-
flaming, purifying, but essentially gracious outpouring of the Spirit.
Catholics for the most part followed Chrysostom, but although one
or two still maintain the interpretation 1) it has been generally
abandoned.
2) Origen, on the other hand, took the prophecy to speak of a
double lustration-of those who repented with the Holy Spirit, and
of the unrepentant with the fire of everlasting punishment. Of the
two, Origen's has retained by far the greater popularity 2). In both
cases Mark was simply regarded as an abbreviator.
At the turn of the century the renewed appreciation of eschato-
logy and the desire to penetrate behind the Gospel records to the
earlier traditions resulted in a re-assessment of the Baptist's

1) See e.g. M.-J. LAGRANGE, Evangile selon Saint Matthieu' (1948), p. 53;
P. GAECHTER, Das Matthdus Evangelium (1963), p. 97.
2) In this century see e.g. F. BUCHSEL, Der Geist Gottesim Neuen Testament
(1926), pp. 143 f.; B. S. EASTON, The Gospel according to St. Luke (1926) p. 40;
W. MICHAELIS, Tdufer, Jesus, Urgemeinde (1928), pp. 32 f.; E. LOHMEYER,
Das Urchristentum I - Johannes der Tiufer (1932), pp. 84 ff.; F. LANG,
'rup', Th.W.N.T. VI, p. 943; W. H. BROWNLEE, 'John Baptist in the New
Light of Ancient Scrolls', The Scrolls and the New Testament (ed. K. STENDAHL
1957), p. 43; G. DELLING, 'BAIITISMA, BAIITIZSHNAI', Novum Testa-
mentum II (1957), p. I07; F. J. LEENHARDT, Le Saint-Esprit (1963), p. 37;
R. E. BROWN, 'John the Baptist in the Gospel of John', New Testament
Essays (1965), pp. I35 f.
Novum Testamentum XIV 6
82 JAMES D. G. DUNN

message. The element of threatening and judgment in the Q version

of John's preaching became the decisive factor in reconstructing
the original logion, rather than later Christian interpretations of
the prophecy,whether seen in terms of Pentecost, Christianbaptism,
or Paul's teaching on sanctification. For many exegetes talk of a
gracious Holy Spirit became incompatible with the Baptist's
message of wrath, and both patristic interpretations had to be
abandoned.
3) C. A. BRIGGS attempted to reconstruct the original Aramaic
behind the passage and came to the conclusionthat John's preaching
in its original form referredto fire alone and contained no mention
of the Holy Spirit 1). Throughoutthis century the view has retained
its appeal 2).
4) An alternative was suggested by A. B. BRUCE: 'The whole
baptism of the Messiah, as John conceives it, is a baptism of
judgment ... I think that the grace of Christ is not here at all.
The rnveisuc&yLov is a strong wind of judgment, holy, as sweeping
away all that is light and worthless in the nation .... The fire
destroys what the wind leaves' 3). This interpretation did not really
catch on until forcefully propounded by R. EISLER4), since when
it has gained several prominent advocates 5).
1) C. A. BRIGGS,The Messiah of the Gospels (1894), p. 67, cited in H. G.
MARSH,Origin and Significance of New Testament Baptism (I941), p. 29.
2) See e.g. J. WELLHAUSEN, Das Evangelium Matthaei (1904), p. 6;
M. DIBELIUS,Die urchristliche Uberlieferungvon Johannes dem Tdufer (I9II),
p. 56; H. VONBAER,Der heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften (1926), pp. i6I ff.;
R. BULTMANN, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (Eng. Tr. 1963), p. 246;
J. M. CREED, The Gospel according to St. Luke (1930), p. 54; T. W. MANSON,
The Sayings of Jesus (I949), pp. 40 f.; P. VIELHAUER, 'Johannes der Taufer',
R.G.G.3 III (1959), 804 f.; W. C. ROBINSON Jnr., The Way of the Lord (1962),
p. 89; H. THYEN,'BAIITISMA METANOIAZ EIS A(ESIN AMAPTIQN',
Zeit und Geschichte (Dankesgabe an R. BULTMANN, ed. E. DINKLER 1964),
pp. 98 n. 6, Ioi n. 25; E. HAENCHEN, Der Weg Jesu (I966), pp. 43, 50.
3) Expositor's GreekTestament (I897) Vol. I, p. 84; he refers back to FURRER
and CARRas earlier proponents of the view that vzCU -OC= wind.
4) R. EISLER, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (1931), PP. 274-279;
and earlier, H. M. TREEN,'Jesus and John the Baptist', Expository Times 35
(I923-24) p. 521.
5) See e.g. C. K. BARRET,The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (I947),
p. 126; C. H. KRAELING, John the Baptist (1951), pp. 59-63; E. SCHWEIZER,
n'rveoa', Th.W.N.T. VI, p. 397; M.-A. CHEVALLIER, L'Esprit et le Messie
dans le Bas-Judaisme et le Nouveau Testament (I958), pp. 55 f.; E. BEST,
'Spirit-Baptism', Novum Testamentum IV (I960), pp. 236-243; W. GRUND-
MANN, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (I96I), p. IO5; W. BIEDER, Die Ver-
heissung der Taufe (1966), pp. 4I, 53. &ayEis usually regarded as a Christian
addition.
 SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM 83

The whole debate is still far from closed, and more recently two
new developments have injected fresh life into it.
5) Following the renewed interest in Redaktionsgeschichte a
number of scholars have argued that Mark contains the original
tradition, and either that the addition of 'fire' is a Christianpesher-
ing to the Pentecostal fulfilment 1), or that Luke has derived his
version from Matthew's redaction of Mark, not from Q 2).
6) The other new factor is, of course, the discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls. A study of the teaching of the Qumran sect has made
it much more plausible to hold that the Baptist did speak of a
gracious Spirit. Of this more shortly.
I) Commentatorswere quite right to abandon Chrysostom'sview.
However justifiable it is for Christians to interpret the Baptist's
words in the light of later events or later theologies, even if they
too belong to the New Testament, in a historical critical assessment
the meaning attributed to the logion must be at least compatible
with that of its original context. And it is beyond question that it is
the note of warning and imminent judgment which most charac-
terizes John's preaching in the Q tradition (Matt. iii 7, Io, I2; Luke
iii 7, 9, I7). For the John of Q fire is what consumes the barrentrees,
unquenchable fire that destroys the rejected chaff. And the fire of
the baptism logion, coming as it does between and closely linked to
the other references, can hardly be so different as to lack the same
element of punitive destruction. Besides, the later Christianinter-
pretations constituted a transformationof John's prophecy, for the
Baptist was evidently mistaken in his expectations (Matt. xi 2-6;
Luke vii 18-23), and since the Christianfulfilment (Pentecost) could
hardly be understood as an act of divine judgment the logion was
preserved only in its Markanform. This transformationis probably
the reason why the metaphor's useful life soon came to an end (it
is found only once without distinct reference to Pentecost-I Cor.
xii 13); the metaphor of baptism was far less appropriate to the
Christian fulfilment than to the Baptist's prophecy.
2) The weakness of Origen'sview has always been the difficulty
of deriving two different baptisms from the Q prediction. For the

1) E. E. ELLIS, The Gospel of Luke (1966), p. 89

2) R. T. SIMPSON,'The Major Agreements of Matthew and Luke against
Mark', New Testament Studies I2 (1965-66), pp. 276 f.; W. WILKENS,'Zur
Frage der literarischen Beziehung zwischen Matthius und Lukas', Novum
Testamentum X (I966), pp. 50 f.
84 JAMES D. G. DUNN

7cvutaoc-tLoyLcp and the cupl are united into a single baptism both
by the tFcsq and by the solitary Ev.The recipients of John's baptism
?Sv {uarL will also receive the Coming One's baptism Ev rv6UpocrT
&YLc' xOCa 1). LOHMEYER
TCupL recognized the force of this objection
in Mark i 8b,
to his view and sought to escape it by treating the U6Laqi
Matt. iii IIc, Luke iii i6c as a later insertion 2). But, as always,
textual surgery is the last haven of a theory too weak in itself to
meet the challenge of critical scrutiny.
3) Attempts to derive the tradition in its present form from an
original 'baptism in fire' are rather tortuous. It is usually surmised
that fire-baptism became Spirit-baptism because John's prediction
of a messianic baptism was fulfilled in a baptism in which the
Spirit was received-either that of Jesus3) or that of the early
Church4). Mark represents this transformed tradition and Q has
conflated the two traditions. But the fact remains that we have no
text which speaks of baptism in fire; it is a purely hypothetical
construction. Moreover, the vital connecting link in the trans-
formation of fire-baptism into Spirit-baptism is lacking. None of
the Gospel writers connect Christ's baptism or Christian baptism
with Spirit-baptism, and Luke does not regard Pentecost as a
baptism in fire (or even in Spirit-and-fire), for in Acts i 5 the
logion is in its Markanform, and in ii 3 the tongues seen are only
like fire. Had he intended anything significant by relating the
accompanyingphenomena, the sound like the rush of a mighty-wind
would suggest that the originallogion spoke of baptism in wind and
fire 5). BULTMANN'S suggestion that the 'baptism in Spirit' sayings
cannot be original since they presuppose the Hellenistic view of
baptism as the sacrament of Spirit bestowal also fails at this point.
As MICHAELIS pointed out, nowhere in Acts is baptism depicted as

1) Cf. P. BONNARD, L'Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (1963), p. 38.

H. SCHLIER,however, refers the baptism in fire to Jesus' second coming, so
that the age of the Church is marked off by two baptisms, one at the
beginning (Spirit-baptism - Pentecost) and one at the end (fire-baptism) -
('Zur kirchlichen Lehre von der Taufe', Theologische Literaturzeitung 72
(I947) reprinted in Die Zeit der Kirche (I956), p. II4).
2) 'Zur evangelischen Uberlieferung von Johannes dem Taufer', Journal
of Biblical Literature 51 (1932), pp. 300-319.
3) VON BAER, op. cit., p. 162.
4) V. TAYLOR, The Gospel according to St. Mark (1952), p. I57; cf. BULT-
MANN, op. cit., p. 246.
5) Cf. LOHMEYER, Urchristentum p. 84, n. 3; KRAELING, op. cit., pp. 59 f.;
SCHWEIZER,op. cit., p. 396; BEST, op. cit., pp. 239 f.
 SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM 85

the sacrament of the gift of the Spirit ). BULTMANN'Srebuttal2)

is based on an inadequate understanding of Acts, where it is particu-
arly noticeable that the only two receptions of the Spirit specifically
designated baptisms in Spirit (Pentecost and Caesarea) are the
ones most clearly separated from and independent of Christian
water-baptism (or any rite). MICHAELIS also notes how improbable
it is that a word should be created which opposed Spirit-baptism
and water-baptism so sharply 3).
5) Similar criticisms can be levelled at the more recent attempts
to uphold the Markan version as more original than Matthew's or
Luke's. It is most improbable that Matthew or Luke transformed
an earlier tradition in which John's preaching accorded so neatly
with later Christian theology, by introducing a whole new hitherto
unknown dimension to John's preaching. On the contrary, the Q
tradition matches its Jewish context so well and its picture of the
Coming One is at such odds with the Christian picture of Jesus that
it is almost impossible to deny the substantial authenticity of the
Q tradition. It is much more likely therefore that Mark (or the
tradition on which he drew) abbreviated the fuller saying (rTveup[arL
xcl 7rupt)in the light of the Christian fulfilment, when he omitted
all the rest of the Baptist's talk of judgment and fire.
4) The wind-and-fire interpretation is the most plausible of those
so far examined, and one of the most coherent explanations of it
was given by ERNESTBEST in an earlier volume of Novum Testa-
mentum (see p. 82 n. 5). But it shares a decisive weakness with its
contemporary (fire-baptism). The reaction against the over-simplici-
ty of the traditional views of the Baptist undoubtedly swung the
critical pendulum too far in the direction of an interpretation in
terms solely of judgment and wrath. Consistency in the portrayal
of the Baptist was bought at the cost of a new over-simplification.
In Synoptic tradition John was not simply a preacher of hell-fire
and brimstone. For example, Mark and Luke also characterize John
as preaching 'a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins'
(Mark i 4; Luke iii 3), and in Q John speaks of the wheat being
gathered into the barn as well as of the chaff being burned (Matt.
iii I2; Luke iii I7). Nor was MANSON justified in arguing that 'The
sense of the saying is not that John's baptism is the preliminary

1) MICHAELIS, op. cit., pp. 2I ff.

2) BULTMANN, op. cit., p. 247 n. I.
3) MICHAELIS, op. cit., p. 26.
86 JAMES D. G. DUNN

to something better, but that it is the last chance of escaping some-

thing very much worse, namely the coming judgment' 1). There is
no 'or else' linking the two arms of the Baptist's antithesis. The
recipients of John's baptism are not threatened with messianic
baptism as a fearful alternative, nor is John's baptism a way of
escape from the Coming One's baptism. The two baptisms are to
be administered to the same people (6iqS); so the baptisands must
have regarded John's prophecy as a promise of grace rather than
a threat of wrath, and must have accepted John's baptism as in
some sense a preparation for the baptism of the Coming One. In
short, John can hardly have promised those who responded to his
preaching a further baptism which was solely retributive and
destructive.
There are thus three factors which have proved decisive in our
considerations up to this point: the fact that in John's preaching
the offer and promise of forgiveness and blessing offsets the threat
of destruction, not least in the saying which immediately follows
the baptism logion; the fact that the Coming One's baptism is
envisaged as a single baptism ?v TcvssutL xcl 7tupi; and the fact
that in the baptism logion the balance of judgment and blessing is
maintained, so that like the saying which follows, it can serve both
as a warning to the impenitent and as a promise to those who
submitted to John's baptism 2). Taken together these facts suggest
that what John held out before his hearers was a baptism which
was neither solely destructive nor solely gracious, but which con-
tained both elements in itself. Its effect would then presumably
depend on the condition of its recipients: the repentant would
experience a purgative, refining, but ultimately merciful judgment;
the impenitent, the stiff-necked and hard of heart, would be broken
and destroyed.
If this is a fair characterisation of the Baptist's sentiments the
question which remains to be answered is whether he could have
expressed these views in terms of the Spirit as well as of fire. In
the above mentioned article, ERNEST BESTmentioned three reasons
for doubting that John spoke of the Spirit.
a) The least weighty was the suggestion that Acts xix 1-7

1) MANSON, op. cit., p. 41.

2) I take 6tas; to be used of John's hearers generally, including those who
responded to his message, but not excluding those who rejected it (cf.
G. R. BEASLEY-MURRAY, Baptism in the New Testament (I963) p. 38).
 SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM 87

implies that the Spirit did not feature in John's preaching. But this
argument must be rejected 1). It is doubtful whether the twelve
Ephesians had ever heard John himself or were ever his immediate
followers. 'The baptism of John' is probably a generic name for
the rite originatedby the Baptist and taken over by others including
Jesus and/or his disciples 2). The Ephesians' puzzling answer--dXX'
ou8' El 7VE5UOC ?YLOV 6CTLVxou67aOUsV-probably means one of two
things: either they knew nothing of the Holy Spirit whatever, in
which case they could hardly be familiar with Jewish thought
generally, let alone the Baptist's preaching in particular; or they
had not yet heard whether the Holy Spirit had come and been
given, in which case they could know John's preaching but not yet
have heard about Pentecost.
b) The second objection is that a reference to Spirit would be
inconsistent with the context. In BEST'Sopinion John 'prophecies
a Messiah who will cleanse Israel by a fiery punishment' 3). Two
points must be made in reply. In the first place, BESTfails to give
sufficient weight to the dual nature of the Coming One's baptism.
In the prophetic thought of the Old Testament it was not only
'fire' which could be used to denote both destruction and purifica-
tion (e.g. Isa. xxxi 9; Amos vii 4; Mal. iv i; Isa. i 25; Zech. xiii 9;
Mal. iii 2 f.), but nlm also could represent judgment as well as
blessing (e.g. Isa. iv 4; xxx 28; Jer. iv II; Isa. xxxii 15; Ezek.
xxxix 29; Joel ii 28 f.). Moreover in Qumran the Spirit appears
as a cleansing, purifying power (I QS iii 7-9; iv 20 f.; I QH xvi I2).
Taking these facts in conjunction with the probability that the
Baptist was influenced by the Qumran sect, to some extent at
least 4), and the Old Testament and Qumran habit of describing
the eschatological role of the Spirit in 'liquid' terms, it becomes
much more feasible to hold that the Baptist spoke of a baptism
in Spirit 5).

1) Cf. MICHAELIS, op. cit., p. 31; KRAELING, op. cit., p. 59.

2) MARSH, op. cit., p. 156. See also J. A. T. ROBINSON, 'Elijah, John and
Jesus', New Testament Studies 4 (I957-58), reprinted in Twelve New Testament
Studies (1962), p. 49 n. 49.
3) BEST, op. cit., p. 237.
4) See H. BRAUN, Qumran und das Neue Testament (I966), II, pp. 2 f.,
io ff., 22.
5) A. G. PATZIA admits the duality in the reference to fire (destructive
and purificatory), but appears to understand the Spirit only as a gracious
gift of salvation ('Did John the Baptist Preach a Baptism of Fire and the
Holy Spirit?', Evangelical Quarterly 40 (1968), pp. 21-27).
 88 JAMES D. G. DUNN

In the second place, BEST assumes too readily that the metaphor
of baptism sv 7VuaT(orL &yLco xocxTupLis synonymous with the
metaphor which immediately follows it: 'His shovel is ready in his
hand, to winnow his threshing floor and gather the wheat into his
granary; but he will burn the chaff on a fire that can never go out'
(Luke iii I7 NEB). But Matt. iii I2, Luke iii I7 cannot be regarded
simply as an exposition of the preceding verse on any exegesis. For
in them the shovel is the most immediate instrument of the Coming
One's activity; the wind (which is not mentioned!) is purely a sifting
separating force, neither beneficial nor destructive; and the fire is
purely destructive 1). Moreover, the object of the winnower's action
is Israel as a whole, whereas the baptism rv TcvsULOC'r xac xupL will
be administered to individuals (iqas). Thus the cleansing aspect of
the Coming One's baptism has a closer parallel in the Qumran idea
of cleansing than in the picture of winnowing 2), which is simply a
different metaphor, suggested no doubt by the terms of the preceding
metaphor, and expressing a similar balance between mercy and
judgment 3).
c) The third objection is that in Jewish tradition prior to John
there was no expectation of the Spirit as the gift of the Messiah.
The eschatological outpouring of the Spirit was not directly
connected with the Messiah. Judged by present-day criteria in
Synoptic study this is a very weighty, even decisive consideration,
and BEST is thus justified in concluding that the connection 'must
be attributed to the primitive Church'. This question, whether John
could have spoken of the Spirit as a gift of the messianic figure
whose coming he heralded, requires a more detailed discussion, for
it leads us on to a much-disputed field in which hypotheses are not
yet ready to give way to firm conclusions. I refer to the current
debate on the origin of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and
on the significance of certain Qumran texts. M. DE JONGE'Sconfident
judgment that the Testaments were the work of a Christian author,
writing about 200 AD and using Jewish Testaments of Levi and

1) A further consideration may be that the wind used for winnowing is

the cool breeze from the west (&veOLo- e.g. Ps. i 4; Isa. xli 16), whereas
7vu5iaoc was more appropriate for the sirocco (east wind) which is infamous
for its excessive heat and parching effects (Jer. iv i) and whose heat is
worst on the east side of the Jordan valley (D. BALY, The Geography of the
Bible (I957), PP. 67-70).
2) Contra BEST, op. cit., p. 237.
3) Cf. BEASLEY-MURRAY, op. cit., p. 38.
 SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM 89

Naphtali as examples and sources of material 1), has had to be

reviewed in the light of the Dead Sea discoveries. On the one hand,
out of the abundance of texts unearthed at Qumran fragments of
only T. LEVI (in Aramaic) and T. NAPHTALI (in Hebrew) have
emerged. But, on the other, there quickly became apparent several
significant parallels between the thought of the Testaments and
that of the Qumran sect. This has led to a variety of conclusions.
For example, J. T. MILIKhas been so impressed by the former fact
that he comes to a conclusion substantially similar to that of
DE JONGE 2); J. DANIELOU argues that the Testaments were the
work of a converted Essene 3); A. DUPONT-SOMMER, however, holds
that all twelve Testaments originated in the Qumran community
round about Ioo BC 4).
The debate continues 5), but though DE JONGE has qualified his
views to some extent, he still maintains that the vital passages
which do speak of the Spirit as the Messiah's gift (T. LEVI xviii 6-8;
T. Judah xxiv 2-3) are Christian 6)-principally on the ground that
they vividly recall Christ's baptism. And even where a pre-Christian
origin for the whole work is postulated, these passages are among
the first to be classified as Christian interpolations 7). The strength
of DE JONGE'S case at this point is impressive, and it would be a
hopeless task, with the evidence as it is, to argue from the Testa-
ments that there was a pre-Christian expectation of a Messiah who
would pour out the Spirit.
On the other hand, it has been argued that the Qumran sect
itself had already linked the Old Testament's twin hopes of a
Spirit-anointed Messiah and a divine outpouring of the Spirit in
the messianic age. The Isaiah scroll found in Cave I at Qumran
reads at Isa. lii 14 f.: 'As many were astonished at him-so did I
anoint his face more than man's, and his form beyond that of the

1) The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (I953), pp. 117, I25.

2) Revue Biblique 62 (I955), pp. 405 f; Revue Biblique 63 (1956), p. 407
n. I; Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (Eng. Tr. I959),
PP. 34 f.
3) The Dead Sea Scrolls and Primitive Christianity (Eng. Tr. I958), pp.
114-117.
4) The Essene Writings from Qumran (Eng. Tr. I96I), pp. 30I-305, 354-357.
5) See the surveys by D. S. RUSSELL, The Method and Message of Jewish
Apocalyptic (1964), pp. 55-57; 0. EISSFELDT, The Old Testament: An
Introduction (Eng. Tr. 1965), pp. 633-636.
6) Novum Testamentum IV (1960), pp. 200-208.
7) See e.g. EISSFELDT, op. cit., p. 633.
9o JAMES D. G. DUNN

sons of men-so shall he sprinkle many nations because of him-

self ...' Here we have an anointed one who sprinkles many nations,
indeed, according to W. H. BROWNLEE, 'an anointing which
qualifies the Lord's Servant to sprinkle others' 1). Although most
Old Testament scholars have abandoned the rendering 'sprinkle'
for w_ in Isa. lii 15 2), the reading 'anoint' in the Qumran scroll
makes it likely that the covenanters understood ;. in the sense of
'sprinkle' (despite the grammaticalproblem as to whether the verb
'sprinkle' can have its recipients placed in an accusative relation-
ship). BROWNLEEbelieves that in this text the Qumran sect had
already brought the thought of a Spirit-anointedMessiahinto union
with that of a Spirit outpouring: 'The Messiah "because of himself"
that is, because of his own anointing(= sprinkling)with the Spirit,
will be qualified to sprinkle others with the Spirit' 3).
This is certainly putting too much weight on the text in question,
but that BROWNLEE'S interpretation is not altogether without
foundation seems to be indicated by two facts. First, the Hiphil
of nlt is always used in the Old Testament (I9 times) of ritual
sprinkling, either of consecration or for cleansing. The context of
Isa. lii 14 f. implies that it is the thought of cleansing which must
be uppermost, in which case we must note again that the Qumran
sect regarded the Holy Spirit as a cleansing power (I QS iii 7-9;
I QH xvi I2; cf. vii 6; xvii 26; frag. ii 9, I3).
Second, ;l only occurs twice in the Scrolls (accordingto KUHN'S
Konkordanz)-I QS iii 9; iv 21. Both passages refer to the water of
purificationin Num. xix,but the latter also speaks of God sprinkling
a spirit of truth upon man like waters for purification. The passage
obviously echoes the promise of God in Ezek. xxxvi 25-27: 'I will
sprinkle clean water upon you ... A new heart I will give you, and
a new spirit I will put within you ... And I will put my spirit
within you ...' (cf. I QH vii 6).
The Damascus Document ii I2-God 'made known to them (the
remnant) by the hand of his anointed ones his holy spirit ...'-
refers to the Old Testament prophets; yet, if this is the correct

1) BROWNLEE, op. cit., pp. 43 f.; F. F. BRUCE, Biblical Exegesis in the

Qumran Texts (I959), pp. 46-57.
2) See C. R. NORTH, The Second Isaiah (1964), pp. 228 f.
3) Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research No. I32 (December
I953), PP. io f.; BROWNLEE summarizes the evidence for the recognition of
the Messianic character of the scroll reading in The Meaning of the Scrolls
for the New Testament (1964), pp. 206-214.
 SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM 91

translation, it would seem to confirm that the idea of the Holy

Spirit being somehow passed on by messiah(s) was not far off.
It is just possible, therefore, that the people of the Scrolls looked
for the coming of a Messiahwho would bestow God's Spirit in virtue
of his own anointing with the Spirit. In which case it would be quite
possible that the pre-ChristianTestaments spoke of a Messiahwho
would pour out the Spirit of grace.
On the other hand, the evidence for this conclusion is so slight
that it would be foolish to build on it. What we can say with rather
more assurance is that the step of fusing the two thoughts, of an
eschatological outpouring of the Spirit and a Spirit-anointed Mes-
siah, was hardly a very great one and was bound to be made sooner
or later; and also that even if the Qumranreadingof Isa. lii 14 f. and
I QS iv 21 do not really take the final step, these passages seem at
least to bring the ideas into juxtaposition. The tiny step which
remains is one which the Baptist may well have taken on the basis
of his own inspiration and conviction. Bearing in mind that John
understood cvspiaoas the Coming One's instrument of judgment,
not of a gracious outpouring, it would have been quite natural for
John to link the nin of Isa. xi 2 with that of Isa. xi 4-the obvious
corollary being that the kingly Messiah exercises ,destructive
judgment by means of the Mll in virtue of Ihis anointing with the
nlm of Jahweh. The pre-ChristianPsalms of Solomon are not far
from this developed understanding (cf. xvii 42 with xviii 7 f.). So
too Enoch lxii 2, although there is a large question mark against
the pre-Christianorigin of this whole section of Enoch.
In more general terms, we must beware of so conforming a man
like John to his backgroundand environmentthat we refuse to allow
him any originality. The hypothesis which maintains that 'A man
can think no other thoughts than the thoughts of those who preceded
him' sounds very peculiar in the mouths of those who claim to be
creative thinkers. On the contrary, a prophet, almost by definition,
is one who in his own eyes is a recipient of new revelation. And
John was, above all else, a prophet (Matt. xi 9 f. and parallels, and
note Luke iii 2). His water-baptism was, after all, something new
and unprecedentedin its application 1).
We may believe then, that John himself had a part in the creative
moulding of the eschatological hopes to which he fell heir, and,

1) Cf. T. W. MANSON, The Servant-Messiah (1953), p. 39.

92 DUNN, SPIRIT-AND-FIRE BAPTISM

influenced by the Qumransect, it is quite probable that it was John

the Baptist who finally linked the eschatological outpouring of the
Spirit to the Messiahand who first spoke of the Messiah'sbestowal
of the Holy Spirit under the powerful figure, drawn from the rite
which was his own hallmark, of a baptism in Spirit-and-fire.